Women's pay equity not due to discrimination?

(Note that everyone allows there is still discrimination; just that it may not be the pervasive problem that these "pay inequity" studies indicate)

Philo
April 30th, 2007 9:51pm

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that professions women tend to prefer are lower paid?

son of parnas
April 30th, 2007 11:50pm

"The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers."

I can believe this. In general I haven't felt a lot of discrimination and don't know too many people likely to discriminate in my field (although they are certainly out there, just not the norm). But, my field is heavily male dominated, and I can see myself making choices in the future that would lead to lower pay. Is it my choice for myself, or society's demands on me? I'm actually not sure. Probably a combination.

the great purple
May 1st, 2007 8:23am

This is still the view:

<quote>
This again reflcts the natural major advantage that the female has in being the limiting factor in reproduction.

Fulfilment for normal women is to have and to raise children. Fulfilment for normal men is to gain high status and to have sex with lots of different partners.

Almost all women can acheive their natural fulfilment, but for men only a minority can do so.
</quote>

Who needs money when we are so easily fulfilled?

son of parnas
May 1st, 2007 9:38am

There is less reward for successful women.

In fact, women who are very successful (have power and money) are called "bitches". There is more negative when you are female and do well. Witness Hilary Clinton, etc.

Every time they trot this 77 cents thing they forget to mention the types of jobs being done.

For example, Hispanic women make something like 15 cents for every dollar a white man makes. You know why? They are massively overrepresented in the hotel-service industry, making minimum wage.

That is a far different animal than implying for every white male doctor, lawyer, or engineer making $100,000/year there's a Latina doctor, lawyer, or engineer making minimum wage, which is retarded.

Lurk Machine
May 1st, 2007 10:48am

The whole "assertive women are called bitches" thing probably explains why so few women rise to the top -- they don't get it.

Nobody likes the assertive male bosses, either. They call them assholes instead of bitches, but the real difference is the men accept it and don't run around crying, "I want to be a dick at work AND have people like me! boo hoo hoo."

Lurk Machine
May 1st, 2007 10:51am

Well, there's also a factor, I think, of overcompensation for lack of male "toughness" in assertive women. Women who are career minded and head to the top of the management chain tend to over-emote their "toughness" and come off as overly aggressive and petty.

In other words, rather than take the longer and harder road of discovering what it takes to be a successful businessWOMAN, they're doing their best to emulate successful and powerful businessMEN, and they're overdoing it.

I always feel like there's something missing in my understanding of how the world works. If you're competent and get along with people (admittedly, a tall order for many people, and the second is arguably more important than the first) ... shouldn't that pretty much be enough to be successful in a workplace? Presumably you also have to make your aspirations known to the right people, too, but I don't see any big need for "assertiveness". But, I'm probably wrong, having only ever been a peon.

the great purple
May 1st, 2007 11:02am

Hmmm.... sometimes it is a little different than that.

Some women in the workplace will flat stab you in the back.
Maybe men are good enough at it to avoid detection.

I had a woman email me once with this: 'You are going to get a call from Jane and she's going to want to know why you haven't talked to her because I told her I told you to talk to her yesterday.'

JoC
May 1st, 2007 11:03am

"Every time they trot this 77 cents thing they forget to mention the types of jobs being done.

For example, Hispanic women make something like 15 cents for every dollar a white man makes. You know why? They are massively overrepresented in the hotel-service industry, making minimum wage. "

Perhaps women are not being allowed into the non-stereotypical fields? Just a guess.

The whole women will stab you in the back thing is something I have to constantly be aware of and kowtow to men who believe this. I have to be more forthright than the men do because they always are suspect. It takes at least 1 year to get men to let their guard down around me.

This means any movement that actually requires cloak and dagger becomes difficult to do, given I have to be forthright.

I think you know what I mean. Trying to explain that...difficult for me.

Yeah, it'd be kinda like being a black guy in an affluent white neighborhood that wanted to rob one of their neighbors.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 11:17am

<Begin Sarcasm>
Yeah, sure, and affirmative action doesn't work either. All 'lower income' people 'deserve' their 'lower income', because they're lazy, or don't get good grades, or don't go to the best schools, or take a few years "off" to raise children.

It's not a problem to be corrected, or even concerned about, because "that's just the way it is", they've made personal choices that mean they're screwed economically. They've made their bed, now they have to live with it.

Excuse me, now, I have to go out with my almost all-white-male executive council with our token female and black to our weekly golf game where we discuss strategy.
<End Sarcasm>

Assuming women are not stupid, then they would gravitate toward the career with the best benefit to them. Money isn't everything--but--it makes a difference for sure. The problem with quantifying everything with dollars is that we miss a few things, such as

1. what advantage is it to go to work if you can get married and let your husband fight those battles?
2. if women take advantage of the marriage out, then the rest of us look like silly dupes for not doing the same, and are derided
3. eventually, women who work are deemed lower class, not "go-getters"

This is where we are now. Women with high-powered educations are opting out of the work force because the battle isn't worth it, the prestige isn't there, and on top of it all, working is something middle and lower class people do.

I don't make as much as "men" make, either, and it's because I can't be fucking bothered to bust my ass at work. I make enough to pay my bills, have the house and car I want, and save a little money. That's all I want or need. I don't need to be the regional sales leader or the fucking CIO or whatever.

I'm convinced that some feminists just want everything handed to them on a platter.

I think many lack the same drive because society places no onus upon them to be the provider. It's similar to separate but equal, only it's been brought about by feminism itself.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 1:58pm

Well, I'm the sole provider in my household. But I am the exception, I suppose.

I don't understand feminists that well, either. Women who are bright enough to go to Harvard decide to stay home and raise kids? WTF. What a waste. I'm sure someone will chide me for thinking that. Whatever. I find all humans unworthy, anyway. For all the progress we have made, we have equally fucked ourselves.

I dunno Sharky. It isn't as if I think men are any better than women. But I do strongly believe that just tossing gender roles out the window for some mistaken ideal of equality is a horribly bad idea.

You can't just 'do away' with hundreds of years of culture with some vain idea of being politically correct. It just doesn't work that way.

While I don't think there should be any sort of necessary penalty for violating them, ignoring the value of gender roles doesn't make them go away, nor devalue them.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 2:15pm

"I don't think there should be any sort of necessary penalty for violating them"

But there is a penalty. Don't get me wrong, I'm no victim in this regard. But I know some women out there must be thinking that having both careeer and family dooms their career.

Yes, but isn't that a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too?

This is what I mean when I say that some feminists don't so much want equality as to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

What justification is there to say that any programmer, regardless of sex, should be paid equally when one busts their ass, puts in 50+ hours per week, and another arrives late, leaves early, and averages 10% of the work day dealing with other family related issues on the phone?

I see nothing wrong with the latter case at all. As a matter of fact, I admire it. I have equal respect for both members of geneder roles. I lack respect for those that would falsely androgenize society and expect anything good to come of it.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 2:52pm

Of course. Why else would women delay having children into their 30's? Because they want to get established in their careers first, that's why.

Shoot, if I were a woman, and I came out of college or graduate school with my degree and a marriage to a fellow student, and the deal was he'd go to work and I'd keep the home and raise babies -- sounds like a fair deal to me.

Except in American culture these days you need an $50K to $100K income to be able to afford to raise a family. And yes, I know people are able to afford to raise a family on less, but then they didn't go to college, did they? And will their children go to college?

And starting out, that takes two incomes. So you delay having children for 5 years so you can get that house, and the two cars, and pay off the student loans. And 5 years becomes 8, and then 10, and then you're both in your 30's and established and you can afford to have the kids. Assuming nobody decided to get divorced and start the clock over.

And so you have kids, and for each one the woman stays home for like 3 months to recover, then the kid's are off to day care and she's back in her job. Well, that woman should be paid as much as a man. But some women decide to take three years off -- well, that woman will never catch up to her male peers.

But that IS a societal problem. Do we want to penalize a woman for raising children? Currently, we are.

SaveTheHubble
May 1st, 2007 2:52pm

But what if BOTH programmers come in early, leave late, bust their ass, but the woman gets paid less because she took 3 years off to raise kids?

Or worse, what if the woman is gay, will NEVER have kids, but gets paid less because all the OTHER women in her position are paid less?

SaveTheHubble
May 1st, 2007 2:54pm

If you have 3 years less experience for whatever reason, I don't see how you could expect equal pay.

I also don't think you can judge performance based solely on the criteria I listed. It's possible for the latter to actually do better work. Facts and figures can't really do justice to that. A jury can't really decide it.

I don't think any sort of enforcement or legislation does anything positive with regard to this. It only promises something for nothing.

There is no widespread epidemic of mysogyny. Business is business and the bottom line is the bottom line. If a good performer isn't being compensated fairly they can always go elsewhere. Money doesn't give a damn what is between your legs, and money is at the heart of it all.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 3:17pm

"Money doesn't give a damn what is between your legs, and money is at the heart of it all."

People say that, but is that really true? There is arguable proof in the form of research--a symphony chose "better" auditioning musicians, until of course, a wall was put up to hide the gender of the auditioners. That's when suddenly the judges began to really pick the best. And of course, this lead to an increase in females in that symphony.

Someone here must have a link. It is only one study, but it debunks this myth.

Yes, I have read that. However, I think you are mistaken that it debunks anything.

How can one be certain that attractiveness wasn't the factor, for instance? If the decision maker were hetero, he may have been influenced by the appearance of females. With no such interest in males, this subconscience filter would be ignored, or at least excercised to a lesser degree.

Also, it could be related to women worrying more of the appearance and of being observed. The barrier adds confidence, and increases their ability to perform. There are just such a large number of factors that I feel they can produce no meaningful results because it is impossible to develop a worthy control group.

'Ooo, we put a wall between them and they chose different!' simply isn't good enough to draw such a conclusion. The study itself smacked of headline grabbing shock value.

Admittedly I would be somewhat hard to sway in that regard. Can there ever be 100% proof? Maybe not.

I suggest we can set up a control group: one group of judges performs blind audition and one group a traditional one.

Rick Zeng/Tseng
May 1st, 2007 4:16pm

Uhm, the point is that there are a ton of other factors aside from gender when people can see each other.

JoC
May 1st, 2007 4:20pm

But you said only money is the issue.

You are now contradicting your absolutist position.

Hmmmm. This makes you WRONG. Bwaaahaaaahaaaaa! You wrong you wrong you wrong you wrong (doing a dance at my desk) you wrong you wrong you wrong!!!!! w00t! A miniscule un-mentionable victory in my pitiful day!!!